TexasCHLforum.com

baldeagle wrote:Imagine the training opportunities for our military. Live ammo exercises. Predator surveillance. Sniper practice. Intelligence gathering. 24x7 armed watches. The list goes on and on. We could even get the brown water Navy involved on the Rio Grande.

I tend to agree but are most of the resources currently tied up overseas? I don't know, just asking. As for the brown water navy, from what I saw of the Rio Grande it's mostly a trickle rather than a great river -- are there really patrol boats on it? Again don't know, just asking -- I had the impression one could walk across in many places and hardly get wet.

SwimFan85 wrote:It sounds like we need an instant check system for I-9 like for 4473. It should be easy for the government to verify, at the minimum, the name, age, and other information match the social security number.

There actually is an instant check system called E-Verify http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/E4eng.pdf. However, use by employers is voluntary (unless the employer is a government body or has been ordered to use it due to previous immigration law violations). It could certainly be argued that use of this system should be compulsory.

SwimFan85 wrote:Shoot them. Leave the bodies as a warning for other criminals.

Hey, I don't agree but it has the merit of being a clear recommendation

The Annoyed Man wrote:

duns wrote:Perhaps we could get back to the thread topic which was not illegal immigration per se but illegals crossing the border armed with weapons?

I would be happy to. I'm not the one who implied that we should overlook illegals who are economic immigrants.

I'm sorry if I implied that. It was not my intention to divert the thread to a discussion of immigration issues generally. What I thought I said was words to the effect that we could make more and easier pathways to legal immigration to take a lot of pressure off the Border Patrol so that they can focus to a greater extent on catching the armed drug runners that were shown on video as coming in brazenly across the border. I do not condone illegal immigration. Apologies if I wasn't clear.

baldeagle wrote:Show my one high profile case in the past 50 years where an employer was fined or punished in any way for hiring illegal aliens. And before you get squirrelly on me, duns, note that I did say high profile - meaning a case that caught everyone's attention and altered behavior patterns.

What about that case where a firm building the California border fence used illegal labor to help build it - $5,000,000 in fines? Does that count as high profile? Not sure if the executives were jailed in the end or whether they did a plea bargain.

The Annoyed Man wrote:But it just isn't that hard to confirm whether or not a job applicant is a legal resident. You have the job opening. The applicant wants the job. Make them prove by verifiable means that they are eligible for the job.

I'm an employer and so familiar with the Form I-9 system. Every new employee (including US citizens) must fill out Part 1 of Form I-9 and present it to the employer with supporting documents that establish both identity and employment authorization. This form has to be presented no later than the start of the employment. The employer has three days to examine the documents unless the duration of the job is less than 3 days in which case he must examine them before work starts. The employer then fills out Part 2 of the Form where he lists the documents submitted and certifies that he has examined them and that they appear to be genuine. The employee and the employer must sign their respective parts of the form under penalty of perjury. Failing to follow the procedure or making false statements on the form makes both the employee and employer liable to fines and/or imprisonment. You stated that you wanted a system where employees "prove by verifiable means that they are eligible for the job". The Form I-9 system is just such a system.

Perhaps we could get back to the thread topic which was not illegal immigration per se but illegals crossing the border armed with weapons?

The Annoyed Man wrote:The solution is to enforce penalties against knowingly hiring illegal aliens, and to require employers to verify a prospective employee's residency status.

Already the case. Employers must complete Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification. https://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/[abbreviated profanity deleted] ... ility.html

OK, I get it now. The issue is illegals coming in with weapons not illegal entry per se. My proposal to solve this problem is to create more and easier pathways to legal immigration so that the gun-toting illegals will not be able to slip over while the Border Patrol is grossly overburdened by their duty to apprehend economic migrants. This would free up the Border Patrol so that it can concentrate on the real threat.

A good book, for anyone interested in understanding the case for open borders, s "Let Them In: The Case for Open Borders", Jason Riley, Gotham Books. Available on Kindle as well as on paper (free Kindle software available at Amazon if you want to read Kindle books on your computer).

Beiruty wrote:no one said, you are not allow to speak your mind. Do not make it an issue. You are dwelling on something in your imagination.

Not my imagination. People said as a US permanent resident, I should not be expressing my opinion but wait till I can vote. Seems like a distraction tactic because they don't want to answer the substantive points I made. People who did answer were largely sympathetic to my point of view: i.e. correct strategy is to make immigration by law-abiding foreigners easier and take pressure off the border, obviating the need for the fence.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

duns wrote:

baldeagle wrote:Not true. You can be deported. A citizen cannot.

What's not true?

You said that there is only one difference between a permanent alien resident, and a citizen - the right to vote. That is wrong. There are at least two differences - the right to vote, and whether or not one can be deported. A resident alien, permanent or not, can be deported. A citizen cannot.

Yes, but till I'm deported don't I have the same rights as a citizen except the right to vote? So far, I haven't been deported. So my opinions here shouldn't be dismissed because I'm a mere GC holder. Right?

The Annoyed Man wrote:I have never said you had no right to an opinion, nor a right to state said opinion - even if I think it is an incorrect one. ...
What I said was to please not try to change my country into something it was never intended to be until such time as you can vote in the matter.

I'm confused. Can I express my opinion or not?

baldeagle wrote:Not true. You can be deported. A citizen cannot.

What's not true?

The Annoyed Man wrote:And mine stands - They don't put you in prison for civil matters. They do put you in prison for criminal matters.

That's speculation on your part. Let's wait till someone really knows.

The Annoyed Man wrote:Welcome to the U.S., by the way; and thank you for entering legally. But if you are here on a Green Card still, then you are still here as a guest. Please don't try to remake my country into something other than what it is supposed to be until you have the right to vote on these matters. It's kind of like being a guest in my home, and then rearranging the furniture without an invitation to do so.

Wow! Firstly, as a TX CHL holder, I am entitled to post in this forum irrespective of my immigration status. Secondly, as a Green Card holder I am here not as a "guest" but as a permanent resident. A guest usually means someone whose tenure is limited in time. A permanent resident has been given leave to live here permanently. I have all the rights of a US citizen except the right to vote. That is the one and only right I lack. YOU say I cannot express my opinions until I have the right to vote -- what gives YOU the right to make rules additional to those made by the US government?

lkd wrote:They're frustrated by the restrictions, soooo....they choose to break the law.

I'm really failing to follow your logic. Please explain your leaps.

I'm not condoning breaking the law just suggesting it's unenforceable. I think the government believes that too and as a result the fence will never be built in its entirety.

lkd wrote:Ok, I'm starting to understand your positioning, and I think it's noble, but it almost seems as if you're in denial of the colossal chasm between idealism and reality. I certainly support a free-market system AND a free-trade system (with reasonable exceptions), but we have a system in place that MUST be obeyed before it can be restructured, otherwise the end result is what we have now -- more barriers, more protectionism, and more conflicts. Remember, WE are not inflicting anarchy on their system, it's quite the opposite. Until the laws are obeyed, you can be CERTAIN the laws will get worse (for those south of the border). Frankly, I know a LOT of Mexicans who are quite annoyed that this problem exists, because they work so hard to work within the system, and everybody else undermines their credibility (much like any gun owner gets villified whenever there is a mass shooting).

I think those who think that the problem can be solved with a long fence are denying reality. The real answer is to relax the controls to let in law-abiding foreign citizens. Then there will be just a trickle across the border of people who cannot get in any other way and they SHOULD be intercepted. Without hordes of people crossing, the job of the border patrol will be much easier and we won't have so much expense and there won't be so many people dying in the mountains and in the desert and in border shootings who are not criminals but just poor people in search of a better life. I quote Ronald Reagan:

I've spoken of the shining city all my political life but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and heart to get here.

Oldgringo wrote:In my old whisky ravaged mind, this debate has now come full circle.

How so? The OP argued that the border controls needed to be tightened. We've now come quite a long way to establishing that LEGAL immigration needs to be made easier to take pressure off the border.